Gay marriage: Let speculation begin
June 28, 2011
Whenever somebody tells me that allowing same-sex marriages will decimate heterosexual marriage, I tell them gay marriage will make hamburgers tastier. As long as neither of us has proof ...
A slightly more rational argument is taking place after New York’s Legislature approved same-sex marriage. There’s already talk of a domino effect, how New York will push more blue states towards marriage equality.
If that’s the case, we’ll have three natural outcomes with each state that “falls” in line:
• Newt Gingrich will comment about the wrong decision being made, and about that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. That will lead to the easy retort that Gingrich is on his third marriage, was unfaithful in his first two and left one while she was dying of cancer. Frankly, I’m not even sure there’s candy left in that pinata.
• Pat Robertson will warn the states of a vengeful God, about how disasters will come and those citizens need not pray in their darkest hour. I’m wondering if Robertson will say the gay marriage vote retroactively caused the Sept. 11 attacks.
• People of all orientations will celebrate, and we’ll have parades and rallies and photo diaries to mark the glorious “gift” from legislators. And the arguments will miss the boat, because we’ll forget there shouldn’t have even been a debate about this in the first place. Or we won’t admit the government was the wrong forum for that debate.
Through the years I’ve had plenty of feedback for columns I’ve written. Here’s one thing that’s never been written: “You’re too much of a libertarian.” You want true libertarian beliefs applied to where you live? I hear Somalia’s awesome this time of year; bring your gun.
When it comes to marriage, though, I’m quite libertarian. Why is it the government’s job to tell consenting adults who they can and can’t marry?
Ideally, marriage is one or more of the following — a religious agreement, a social agreement or a financial agreement. The people involved determine the percentages, because it’s THEIR marriage.
When it becomes a legal partnership, requiring governmental permission, then it becomes everybody’s marriage and opens the Pandora’s box. Suddenly, government’s defining tax rates based on your marital status. It’s telling you which religions are crazy, and which are approved based on marriage customs.
The simplest solution: It’s not the federal government’s right to define marriage. It’s not a state’s right to define marriage. It’s an adult’s, and whatever church or private business they want to perform the services.
I’m don’t really have a problem with Gingrich defining marriage(s), provided that definition isn’t applied beyond Gingrich and his spouse(s). Whoever I marry someday, I hope we’re the only ones allowed to define our marriage.